This slide from my 2011 presentation at the GAC/MAC conference shows a plot of sea surface temperatures from the Argo Buoys.

These buoys demonstrate that the overall heat content of the oceans has been increasing explaining the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration resulting from degassing but they also show that the overall sea surface temperature is decreasing contrary to what would happen if the sea surface was being magically warmed by the atmosphere. (The sun heats the ocean surface and the ocean surface heats the atmosphere no the other way around as the ignorant warmists proclaim).

If 30,000 buoys spread around the world tell us the sea surface has been cooling since at least 2003 as CO2 is increasing there is no possible correlation.

How saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels.

Evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming was always slim, now it lies cruelly exposed both by a cruel blowback and it’s not just coming from within the science.

A far more devastating catastrophe is unfolding and it is entirely the product of the mad rush to biofuels: third world famine. Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation. Why did it happen?

Kyoto Protocol: The Trigger to Mass Starvation

What mechanism prompted mankind to instigate this genocide of the world’s poor? The Kyoto Protocol. International governments signed up to the idea that biofuels were going to be the better, cleaner, greener source for mankind’s energy needs in a new utopia predicted for us by ‘expert’s inside the United Nations.

Canadian Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch is as concerned as many independent scientists at the alarming rate at which this international food crisis is now escalating.

Pure water has a pH of 7. Acids have a pH below 7, bases have a pH above 7. Sea water has a typical pH of 8.2, so it is a base, not an acid. Sea water is saturated with the carbonate ion which means that it is saturated in CO2. Soda water is acidic because it is pure water with just CO2 which forms carbonic acid. Soda water at bottled pressure of 2.5 atmospheres, has a pH of 3.7 making it quite acidic, but if left standing in the refrigerator at 2 degrees C at atmospheric pressure, the CO2 will bubble off leaving a saturated solution with a pH of 5.6. If the soda water is left standing at room temperature, more CO2 will bubble off, leaving a saturated solution with a less acidic pH of 5.7. CO2 saturation is dependent on temperature and pressure, and in sea water the amount of CO2 dissolved is a function of depth and temperature.

In all cases, sea water is saturated in CO2, but as sea water is basic, any acidity changes due to CO2 really have no effect because of the overwhelming predominance of dissolved salts that make sea water basic. People are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to misrepresent fact as has continually been done promoting the scientifically baseless human-caused global warming issue.

Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary

Listed below are a series of letters published in the Calgary Herald that started from the article "CO2 buildup turning ocean water acidic" by Deborah Zaba

The entire basis for the concept of global warming being caused by CO2 emissions is both predicated and dependent on the answer to a simple question:

“How much of the thermal radiation energy from the Earth in the band centred on the 14.77micron wavelength that is resonant with the vibrational mode of CO2 has already been affected by the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and how much energy remains to be affected?”

This question was never addressed by Svante Arrhenius in his seminal 1896 paper because that paper predates quantum physics and he was not aware that the process by which thermal energy is affected by CO2 is limited to a single vibrational mode with a resonant wavelength of 14.77microns.

In fact a close examination of that paper reveals that the measurements of energy used in this paper excluded this CO2 resonant wavelength and the paper, when scrutinized with respect to quantum physics, makes no actual measurement of the effect of CO2 but only uses an assumed ratio of the effect from CO2 compared to the effect of water vapour (which was all that was actually measured).

There is currently no global warming, there is no possible return to global warming predicted any time in the near future and most importantly there has been absolutely no global warming for over a decade.

The global warming that did occur from 1975 to 1998 was definitely not the result of global CO2 emissions, because quite simply the saturation of the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation by CO2, makes further ‘CO2 emissions caused global warming’ a physical impossibility.

In effect, the entire world has been the victim of fraud, and while the general public are just innocent victims; the world leaders who are also victims, by succumbing to this fraud have failed their citizens, and have allowed untold hardships to be inflicted on the global population.

There has never been a single piece of physical evidence that supported the conjecture of AGW.

Victims or not, the world leaders must be held accountable for allowing this fraud to be perpetuated for an entire decade after global warming ended without ever questioning the validity of the premise and blindly accepting the word of the politically motivated IPCC.

The pollution resulting from the rapid uncontrolled post war industrial expansion spawned two environmentalist movements. One group primarily composed of physical scientists and engineers set about to directly address the pollution problems by developing facilities and legislative controls that have to date virtually eliminated industrial contamination of soil, water and air.

A second group primarily composed of activists with little or no physical science background did nothing but protest against industry without ever having addressed a single environmental problem for which they created a solution.

While the physical scientists and engineers worked quietly with industry solving the environmental problems, the ideology driven environmentalist activists, used dramatic alarmist rhetoric to gain media control and have become a dominant political force capable of forcing their self serving ideologies on the general public with impunity.

From the following post CO2 REALITY CHECK by Norm Kalmanovitch we had a challenge put to Norm from a "I Parker", in that the said person sent in the link to the EIA containg the Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government concerning the make up of Greenhouse gases and "Climate Change", and then wanted to know how Norm arrived at his figures.

I recently came across conclusive IPCC evidence that human emissions only form a small part of the emissions increase necessary to create the observed increase in atmospheric concentration which clearly falsifies the AGW hypothesis. This has been posted on CO2 REALITY CHECK

It occurred to me that with this irrefutable proof that humans are not the prime source for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration increase, coupled with the fact that the Earth is cooling as emissions continue to rise, that there is the perfect case to discredit the whole climate issue from the direction of science protocol and the fact that this protocol was violated by the Bali Declaration -http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Bali.html.

"This clearly demonstrates that only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tonnes of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 was from fossil fuels".

I have been having some discussions (technical disagreement) regarding the fact that there were emissions reductions from 1979 to 1982 that had no effect on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and stating that this was proof that fossil fuel emissions are not the primary source for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Having this in my head, in reading one of your inclusions I found an interesting table from the IPCC 2001 TAR which listed the contribution from nature as well as the contribution from humans and the total annual increase in contribution from both sources. What is missing is the annual increase in human contribution. When you put in the approximate figure of 500 million metric tonnes per year for the human contribution, the table refutes the IPCC claim that humans are the prime source for increases in CO2 emissions.

I put together the attachment in a rather pedantic style (for which I apologize) just to make the point that the IPCC is so messed up that even their own publications refute their conjecture.

If the Copenhagen conference is about addressing climate concerns, the focus should be on the detrimental effects of ‘global cooling’ and not about ‘global warming’ which ended over a decade ago. While ‘global warming’ was not only benign, it was beneficial, improving the global food supply with extended growing seasons for countries such as Canada which supplies wheat to many parts of the world facing food shortages. ‘Global cooling’ on the other hand has no beneficial attributes as is clearly demonstrated by the historical accounts of the Little Ice Age that caused such great hardships for large parts of the world.

The physical data clearly shows that the world has been cooling since 2002 at a somewhat alarming rate. Unlike the global cooling episode from 1942 to 1975, which was part of a shorter period cycle, this cooling might be part of the longer period cycle that brought the world from the Medieval Warm Period, to the Little Ice Age, to the warming that peaked in 1998, and is now reverting back to a long period of cooling. Most scientists agree that this cooling will last until the end of solar cycle 25 in 2030, but many fear that this cooling may last a lot longer.

To anyone with basic physical data and a modicum of common sense, the concept of a conference about greenhouse gas emissions reductions to stop ‘global warming’ can only be seen as ridiculous; considering ‘global warming’ ended over a decade ago, but CO2 emissions have kept increasing as the Earth continues to cool.